Because of a recent guest on Tucker Carlson’s podcast and his promotion of this guest, (March 31, 2025) the controversy over Dispensationalism verses Replacement Theology is heating up again on social media. “Replacement Theology” is the belief that the church has replaced Israel (and/or the Jewish people) as the focus in Scripture. It basically negates the importance of Israel, as a people and a nation. Replacement Theology means exactly how it sounds. It redefines to whom God’s Covenant was given as God’s Chosen People. Replacement Theology, also known as “Dominionism” and “Supersessionism” (meaning the church has superseded Israel as God‘s chosen people) is in opposition to “dispensationalism” which is my view and the more common, traditional, Christian view.
“Dispensationalism” is an evangelical view that interprets Biblical history as a series of distinct eras or "dispensations" where God interacts with humanity in different ways. It emphasizes the distinction between Israel and the Church, believing the Jew to be God’s chosen people to fulfill His Divine plan, and it explains the need for both. This is based on Genesis 12: 1-3, the Abrahamic Covenant, – the promise God made to Abraham.
12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Let’s more clearly define that, too. This was a divine agreement made between God and Abraham, promising him a great nation, land, and blessings for all nations through his descendants.
Verse 1: God commands Abraham to leave his homeland (Mesopotamia) and go to the land God will show him – Canaan, the Promised Land to become Israel.
Verse 2: God promises to make Abraham a great nation, bless him, and make his name great.
Verse 3: God promises that all peoples on earth will be blessed through Abraham.
And with that covenant the Jews made a sign: Circumcision was established as the sign of the covenant between God and Abraham and his descendants in Genesis 17: 9-14.
So with that ground work laid, let’s get back to today and the podcast that caused me to write: Tucker Carlson’s March 31, 2025 interview with Andrew Isker. Isker is the pastor of 4th Street Evangelical Church in Waseca, MN. Interestingly, Isker also has connections and studied under Pastor Doug Wilson, at Greyfriars Hall Ministerial Training School in Moscow, ID. This school was started by Wilson’s “Christ Church” in Moscow. Wilson is a Senior Fellow of Theology at the school. He is a Reformed Calvinist and is one of the pastors, whom Tucker has recently interviewed, promoting “Covenant Theology” and/or “Replacement Theology”. Covenant Theology is a little softer than Replacement Theology, by saying that the church has not replaced Israel, but has fulfilled God’s promise whom He had made to Israel. In my view, Covenant Theology is one and the same as Replacement Theology and the terms are interchangeable, because they both negate Israel. Covenant Theology teaches that the existence of Israel today is not prophetically significant. This is why I assume Tucker found this pastor and interviewed him. He supports Tucker’s political agenda, as does anyone who won’t support Israel.
Many of Tucker’s guests since leaving Fox News have been very anti-Israel, and this guest was not an exception. Tucker is obsessed with the United States support of Israel. He hates it. He doesn’t like money going to them and he does not want to be seen defending them in any way. He pretends he has the same views as President Trump, or rather that President Trump’s are the same as his; but they are far different when it comes to foreign policy. And personally, I see all of Tucker’s anti-Israel guests as a means to undermine Trump’s views and policy. TC is trying to bring us along to his view. I have yet to seen him interview a guest from the other side. I think he believes when he gets to us, he can influence Trump.
I don’t like talking or arguing Scripture or someone’s beliefs, but Tucker is a political pundit that continually weighs into faith doctrines that are controversial and he is teaching them as fact. This, without us even knowing for sure that he is a Christian. I think it needs to be addressed. I respect everyone’s difference in beliefs, when I know it is truly about their faith and not their politics. Or even if they buffer their politics with their faith beliefs. But not when the two are clearly in opposition, or faith is being used, distorted, or manipulated. Below is a list of Tucker’s guests that have brought me concern. All of these people have been reported to be anti-Semites in one form or another and/or anti-Israel. I don’t think that’s coincidental. Where is the other side if it’s about fairness? Here they are:
Jimmy Dore, Candace Owens, Colonel Doug Macgregor, Glenn Greenwald, Thomas Massie, Darryl Cooper, (MartyrMade), Alex Jones, Ian Carrol, Russel Brand, Julian Assange, Doug Wilson, Jackson Hinkle, Palestinian pastor Munther Isaac to name a few. I think he has also supported the Tate brothers; I know that Candace Owens has. He always downplays it after the interview, if criticism comes, saying he's just supporting free speech. But it's more than that; he's consistently promoting a belief and an agenda. Do you think all of those interviews are coincidental, when the other side is completely missing?
And now, most recently, he has interviewed Andrew Isker, a Replacement Theology advocate and a teacher of this doctrine. This is the interview that blew up everything on Facebook and X. It has caused me to want to address the inaccurate doctrine of Replacement Theology. Dispensenationalism, in contrast to Replacement Theology, has been discussed and argued for forever - by the best of theologians! So I don’t expect to match that and I certainly don’t expect to change anyone’s ideas or faith. But I have to try to explain some things anyway, from merely a layman’s perspective. I want to address it not so much in regard to the difference in faith doctrines, which I believe we are not to argue. But rather, I want to address the political perspective of Tucker Carlson and him using this doctrine to support his incorrect political ideology. And honestly, I think it’s perfectly fine that I try to do that, because I believe I know more about this than Tucker Carlson. Just sayin’. ;-) Plus I absolutely believe what this is really about for Tucker, is only his politics. Let me make clear, I am not questioning or attacking Christians who hold to this view. Doctinal differences among Christians is a completely different issue than what I will discuss here.
Beginning Trouble with Tucker
Since leaving Fox News, Tucker has gained a tremendous number of followers that are considered “Groypers”. “Groypers” are an “alt-right” (that term is too nice) group that consists of mostly young people that were formed and named by Nick Fuentes. Fuentes is a well-known anti-Semite that was kicked out of the “Conservative Political Action Committee” (CPAC) for his radical, anti-Semitic statements. He then formed his own group called “America First Political Action Committee”, (AFPAC). He likes to identify himself and his group as “Christian” and/or “Christian Nationalists”. But “by their fruits you will know them.” I don’t see anything but rotten fruit. I can easily identify someone from this group in the comment section of Tucker’s posts on social media. None of them are quiet about their affiliations. I think that growing number is a concern. To me, that proves what ideology Tucker is promoting – they LOVE him and are in agreement with him.
Also, don’t be confused by their “America First” label; they are not “America First” in the way President Trump means. They are, in fact, basically not much different than what we used to identify as “neo-Nazis” – a far, far right radical, racist group that really mean “white only”. In fact, they are so far right, they reach the left. And in the correct definition, Hitler was not of the right, but rather the left. “National Socialists” was from where the term Nazi came. So it is not very hard to figure out where their ideology lies on “The Left – Right Political Spectrum”. Naturally, most of the people in this group are anti-Israel, whether they claim to be Christian or not! As far as the Groyper’s, people of other races are allowed and accepted in that group (as opposed to the neo-Nazis) ...just as long as they hate Israel. They wildly support this doctrine as is apparent in the comments on social media. These people identifying as “Groypers” give conservatives a bad name. They give a reason for ignorant liberals to identify all “conservatism” as “racist” when that couldn’t be further from the truth. That’s just another reason, they are so dangerous, in my view.
Now with that being said, I am not saying people that adhere to Replacement Theology, or this pastor align with. or support Groypers. I am saying there is a draw in Tucker’s messages that causes them to want to support him and they follow him faithfully. Therein lies a grave danger. They are gaining ground and credibility in the minds of those truly ignorant to what is taking place and love Tucker for all of his other accurate conservative positions, which of course he holds.
But here, I hope to demonstrate the inaccuracies with Tucker’s interview and the theology of Andrew Isker, which is indeed, “Replacement Theology”.
A Little Background
Tucker claims in the interview, that there are numerous times where Scripture erases the traditional view we believe, of God working differently through the dispensations. But I don’t think it’s wise to be taking our teaching from a political pundit who may or may not be a Christian. Certainly, in any case, we shouldn’t allow a new Christian, or a non-Christian to teach us the Bible; and there seems to be a lot of that going around these days. Politics is one thing and bringing God into it is perfectly acceptable. But to allow a political pundit to try to tell us what the Bible states (as if in a Bible Study) should be a huge no-no. And that is what I believe is happening on many fronts...Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Jordan Peterson, Russel Brand, just to name a few.
But back to the issue at hand. First, let’s define the name “Israel” according to Scripture. J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) in his book “Are You Ready for the End Time” explains the importance of defining terms before attempting an explanation. We can’t get to the correct end result, if from the beginning we don’t define what we are explaining so that people can understand correctly and all be on the same page.
Ryle points out there are 3 ways Israel is used/defined in the Bible.
Jacob, (father of the 12 tribes) whose name God changed to the name “Israel”.
The land defined with boundaries. This is the ten tribes that separate from the southern kingdom of Judah which had two tribes.
The entire Jewish race (the entire 12 tribes) who were scattered and brought back together as told and prophesied in Jeremiah 31:10.
"Hear the word of the Lord, you nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd."
Why do I even care about any of this? Scripture tells us multiple times that we are to bless Israel, and to pray for Jerusalem. In Genesis 12: 3, Numbers 24: 9 and Psalm 122:6, we are told that “those who bless Israel will be blessed. Those who curse Israel will be cursed.” Who wants to mess with that?? I certainly don’t. I want to bless Israel in my personal life and I want to be sure my church, and my nation continues to bless them.
Replacement Theology goes back as far as 160 AD and it has been debated since that time, too. I believe there has always been a waxing and a waning, where it grows stronger with many recurrences at different times in history. And there has always been a difference in theological views. It reportedly began out of a belief that from that time, the Jews had too much influence into the church and there was a desire that they be purged from Christianity. (How contrary is that?) These sentiments found their way into the hearts of the early church, ignoring the fact that the first church and the early church were obviously Jewish! Let’s get real! The church began at Antioch with Jews who knew those who had been discipled by Jesus – the earliest Christians were Jewish! The writers of the Bible were Jewish and they preserved the Scriptures for us! The disciples/apostles were Jewish; and the first missionaries were Jewish! And of course Jesus was Jewish!
But many who hold to the view of Supersessionism/Replacement Theology, also believed and blamed the Jew for crucifying Jesus, rather than understanding it was something that was always God’s plan. It was purely out of a lack of understanding that the Jews were blamed. These views became the basis for anti-Semitic teaching in many church circles. And in fact, are still around today. Those views ignored the fact that this was all entirely God’s plan, and that in a divine act of love God created a way for both the Jew and the Gentile to enter into His kingdom. I only point to this negative aspect as a means of how doctrine could have been misconstrued. Certainly though, many who hold to Replacement Theology are truly born again Christians who do not blame the Jew for the death of Jesus and they of course, understand the Gospel message completely. They simply hold to an allegorical view of the promise God gave to Israel.
In more recent years, Supersessionists now claim that Dispensationalism didn’t come about until the publishing of the Scofield Bible in 1909, which supposedly “promoted the inaccurate doctrine of Cyrus I. Scofield.” They also like to point to John Nelson Darby as a key figure in the development and disseminating of dispensationalism. The Scofield Bible did indeed come out in 1909 with a reprinting in 1917, but the commentary it gave, only supports what has been alive since the beginning of the first church... because, that view is Biblical. Dispensationalism was not created out of nothing, as accused; but rather it has always been, due to the tenets that were already present in Christian theological systems since the first church! It’s Biblical! Dispensationalism has been from the beginning of the church age! It IS the church age. Israel is God’s chosen people and God has not revoked that. Many people want to say that the belief of Israel as God’s chosen is new within the last couple hundred years. But that simply isn’t true. The truth is, there has never been a time in church history that this hasn’t been debated, so to claim this is only as recently as the Scofield Bible interpretation is simply not true. And in fact, Matthew Henry (1662-1714) spoke of Dispensationalism in the 1600’s. Matthew Henry stated in his commentary regarding Galatians 3:15-18:
“The covenant God made with Abraham, was not done away by the giving the law to Moses. The covenant was made with Abraham and his Seed. It is still in force; Christ abideth for ever in his person, and in his spiritual seed, those who are his by faith.”
Christians that adhere to Replacement Theology often use Galatians 3 for their source of affirmation. Galatians 3:29 is a main verse that is used. “And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” While of course this is true, it is taken out of context to show Christians have superseded the covenant with Abraham. Certainly we are the offspring of Abraham. But nowhere does this imply that God has cast away, or is through with the Jewish people.
Supersessionists also use Galatians 3:7, 9, and 6:16, to support their belief in Replacement Theology; but to believe that, these verses must be taken out of context and interpreted allegorically as opposed to a literal translation. It is a means to make the promise God made to Abraham null and void, by implying God is done with the Jewish people. This couldn’t be further from the truth. “Eternal” means “eternal”. And “irrevocable” means “irrevocable”.
Though supersessionists may use Galatians to support their beliefs, Galatians 3:15, actually supports dispensationalism, showing that the Abrahamic Covenant was never revoked. Paul uses this example to show that a ratified covenant, even a human one, cannot be set aside or amended. Paul clearly states that God's covenant with Abraham remains in place even after the law was given through the time of Jesus, and through the church age.
Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
To believe that the church has replaced Israel, also negates one of the best witnessing tools we have; and that is Israel as God’s Time Clock. How can one look at the news headlines of today, and not see through what is happening in Israel, that God is in the center of all of it?
The truth is Replacement Theology actually fuels anti-Semitism as revealed in the words and actions of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and others that I have mentioned. At the very least, if not anti-Semitic this view gives them allowance to campaign against our support for Israel. That is NOT President’s policy or belief. And I don’t care how hard Carlson tries to make us believe their views align.
While making sure this group tell us to read Galatians 3, they seem to ignore Romans 11 where it is made clear that we (the Christian) have been grafted into Israel. Through the fall of the Jewish people, salvation has come to the Gentiles. We have not replaced Israel, but we have been grafted into Israel. Romans 11:17
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Romans 11 tells us that He has hardened the hearts of the Jew for their unbelief to give time to bring the Gentile to Him. Until the time of the fullness of the Gentile has come in. (been saved) All Israel will then be saved. Romans 11:26. And that is where understanding prophecy comes in to play. This does not mean that every Jew will be saved any more than every Christian will be saved. It depends and relies on a commitment to our Savior, Jesus Christ. These verses clearly depict the difference in the Jew and the Christian and tell us why and when – “until the full number of the gentile has come in.”
25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:“The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
God doesn’t forsake any promise because of our misbehavior. This clearly states the promise is irrevocable! He did not reject Israel for their sin, any more than he rejected us for our sin. He sent Grace – His Son. He knocks on our door and waits until we are ready and understand our need of Him. Why would he forsake his promise to Abraham and his descendants? “God forbid.” He wouldn’t. The answer is found in Romans 11:1-2 when Paul states:
I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
God is a promise keeper and He is not going to make void an “eternal” promise that He made to someone He identifies as His “chosen people” and the “apple of His eye”.
Our Father God made a permanent and irrevocable call to Israel that is separate from the call of Jesus to the church. That’s dispensationalism. But they work together in tandem. He hasn’t replaced Israel with the church. Instead he did away with the Jewish atonement system that He created until the time Jesus came to make a permanent atonement for our sins. When that is complete, he will return His attention to Israel.
Israel is still very much a part of His plan. In fact, we as the church are said we will provoke the Jew to jealousy, in order to help draw them to Jesus, their true Messiah.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
And not only does He wait for the moment of their salvation, He uses the nation of Israel as a witness and a “Time Clock” for the world to know the time is at hand. That’s powerful, when one views it in context! Read the headlines of today’s news, then follow along in Scripture. Israel is very much a part of God’s plan!
The Interview
In this interview, Tucker criticizes all of us for not reading Scripture, saying “the Bible tells us a thousand times that the church has replaced Israel.” That might be a paraphrase. But no. It does not! Obviously he is the one who needs a lesson in theology. Funny how he suddenly knows more than millions of Christians for generations! How arrogant!!! He simply does not have complete understanding and I believe he is relying on head knowledge from a group of people that choose to believe differently, rather than from “a circumcision of the heart” – that term from the Bible, purposely stated in language the Jew will understand. Intentionally...because they still matter!
They obviously don’t matter to Tucker and the myriad of people he has been hosting on his podcast. I am a bit worried about his influence and I am tired of what I believe to be his deception.
"For he is not a Jew, which is only outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Romans 2:28-29:
“As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” ~ Romans 11:28
Matthew 5:18 states, "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished".
* Underlined emphasis, mine.